That is all this case had to do with... race. It sure as (*)(*)(*)(*) had nothing to do with Floridas stand your ground law. This happens all the time between various races... and statistically black people benefit more from SYG laws than anyone else. This case was only news because of race. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the black AG, and first black president wade in and all drop their race cards to pay for the publics meal... its never ending consumption for controversy. Zimmerman was railroaded... as the trial showed. They went after him with everything, on nothing... because they replaced people to do that very job. The DoJ came in and mediated between "angry black people" and "the officials that appease them" to persecute a man who defended himself against a violent punk. He didn't shoot him 15 times in the back. He was getting his head and face bashed in, and when TM went for his gun, he shot him... reasonably fearing for his life. This was a media issue, a political issue, and a plague here because the black community assumed Zimmerman was racist because they are racists. The media doctored evidence and spun the narrative, the administration saw it as a way to stoke demonstrations as a platform to go after guns. The whole thing is sick... but not because the law protected Zimmerman. Thank goodness for that. However SYG had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.
exactly so whenever someone gets into a fistfight and they are getting their ass handed to them, they get to shoot the other person great - - - Updated - - - except that without Syg, zimmerman would be in jail
Then its your word against...nobody's. You simply have to have evidence. Your questions and biased suppositions are not evidence. "except that without Syg, zimmerman would be in jail" Taxcutter says: Wrong! Zimmermann used classic self-defense - a tactic since Roman times at least
This does not compute. The Florida SYG law exempts one from manslaughter. This case was straight self-defense on a manslaughter charge. The defense opted NOT to use the SYG defense, they waived the right because this was not a SYG situation. There was nowhere for Zimmerman to retreat once attacked. This was a self-defense plea, which aquitted him. Just like every other state in the union. You have been fed, and digested, the administrations mantra of assumption. The defense wisely defended what it was... and not SYG. The presumption of SYG is why the administration stepped into the (*)(*)(*)(*) to begin with... as part of an overall gun reform platform. I am sorry you were suckered early... and didn't bother to deal with the facts of the case... which was self-defense... not SYG. You are just wrong.
I will await your outrage. http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/ His gigantic ass didn't even have his face and head bashed in. One of the 3 kids "lunged" at him he said. The living witnesses said he was running away from the guy with the gun. SHOW ME THE RAGE!!!!!!!
The propaganda guys sure do like pictures. Rules don't allow much scope for moderating pictures, unless it's porn. Of course here, we see laughter. Why? Because the guy is big and black? Isn't that a tad racist? Can speak for no one else, but my outrage in the Zimmerman things was totally over the apparent 'no charges' at the beginning. I figured we needed a trial. We had one, so I'm content. There was a trial in the Roderick Scott case too. Someone who wants can dig into it and see if there's a reason to be outraged. Hint: you really need a little more besides that Roderick Scott is big and black.
a fistfight? It was an attack by a punk with who knows what intentions, so yeah I am good with the shooting.
1. you weren't there, you dont know what the intentions were. All we DO know, is that it was a fistfight. 2. the laws says that ANY person engaged in ANY fistfight can shoot his opponent once he feels sufficiently scared
except that the core of the jury instructions was the essence of the SYG law: "If George Zimmerman . . . was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force . . . .” The judge esssentially said to the jurors that there is a wide array of circumstances under which you can murder someone and still be innocent under Florida law. And the jurors found that Zimmerman's actions fell within that wide array. And that is the crux of our debate--that this array of circumstances is simply too broad. So yes, SYG has everything to do with it.
that's pretty messed up pretty much, the message we get is that if you own a gun, you can shoot people whenever you feel like it, and that's fine. No wonder our country is so violent. There are many people who are violent people. And our country's gun culture is only a part of the problem.
I guess you're right, you DON'T get it. No, you can't shoot anyone anytime you want. not that it stop the punks from shooting each other up.
The person must have a reasonable fear for their life or from serious bodily harm. The law of self-defense is essentially the same in every state and throughout history. Are you under the belief that self-defense should not be the law of our land?
a one-sided attack, using MMS-styled sucker punch is not a fist fight. Those are the facts in evidence. cite the source.................
You make my point for me. Zimmerman did not know what Punk boy's intentions were, so he was free to assume the worst.
governmental corruption certainly isn't exclusive to the us. the violent power inherent in government attract those who would abuse it and corruption is rampant in all authority everywhere in the world. corrupt authority is so common that it is taken for granted in most countries and it is the us that is one of the few places where it is actually seen as a problem.
No not true, by word or action, the actor has to make you believe that you are under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Let's look at words, if I say I am going to shoot you dead and I expose my weapon...you think you should wait until I actually try it? Lets look at action, without saying a word you see me start to pull my weapon, are you going to wait until I shoot at you before you pull your gun? If in your example someone pulls back their jacket and you see their gun and they don't meet the requirements I previously set forth you would have to either lie about it or risk facing conviction or both. I don't get where you people think a person never has to show what the actual or perceived imminent threat of death or great bodily harm was, that is the first thing an investigator or a prosecutor would look at. I do agree that the law doesn't require the bad guy to attack you before you are under imminent THREAT of death or great bodily harm....that's true for cops as well.
So your point is you might not be able to get away with killing the next guy unless you "lie about it?"
Not completely true. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...041&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html There are a whole lot of conditions you have to meet first so it's not as simple as you imply as is usually the case with the zealous. Oversimplification seems to run rampant
Well not quite...you did read what I wrote cause there was a whole lot more there. Ultimately though yes there is always a risk that unsavory people will inappropriately use the law. Our laws while good are not perfect.
The point of law is to dissuade that unsavory behavior. A law which ultimately relies on those unsavory people's honesty, which will let them get away with murder if they're willing to "lie about it," is not just an imperfect law. It's a bad law.
